Institute
The
Beacon The Windward Institute Journal for Educators and Parents Spring 2021 IN THIS ISSUE The Simple View of Reading By Hugh W. Catts, PhD
1
HEAD LINES
10
Q&A WITH INSPIRING LEADERS IN THE WORLD OF DYSLEXIA
12
Learning Disabilities vs. Learning Differences: Why the Language We Use Matters By Jamie Williamson
Magdalena Zavalía Miguens, Literacy Leader in SpanishSpeaking World By Stephanie Huie TURNING THE TIDE
The Masked Matthew Effect By Annie Stutzman
By Hugh W. Catts, PhD 14
INSIDE THE INSTITUTE
16
RESEARCH ROUNDUP
19
INTERSECTING RESEARCH WITH CLASSROOM PRACTICE
22
NEWS AROUND WINDWARD
25
ScientificallyBased Reading Programs: Caveat Emptor By Dr. John J. Russell, EdD
The Simple View of Reading: Advancements and False Impressions
Yes, And...A Comprehensive Model for Understanding Reading Disabilities By Danielle Scorrano
Why Reading Aloud Is Not Just for Early Readers By Molly Ness, PhD and Kate Sullivan
Jamaica Partnership Spotlight and Windward/Haskins Study Year 1 Data
This article was originally published in Remedial and Special Education, vol. 39, No. 5, September/October 2018. pp. 317-323, copyright © 2018 by Hammill Institute on Disabilities. Reprinted by Permission of SAGE Publications, Inc.
T
he simple view of reading (SVR) was introduced by Gough and Tunmer over 30 years ago in a short paper in this journal (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). At the time, it was unlikely that the authors had any appreciation of the impact their rather simple but insightful conceptualization would have on the field of reading. Most of this impact has been positive and has led to significant advancements in our understanding of reading comprehension (RC). In this commentary, I will highlight these advancements as well as the contributions of the other research papers in this issue. I will also raise the possibility that the impact of the SVR has not been completely positive. I will argue that the simplicity of its presentation has unintentionally contributed to some false impressions about comprehension, and in doing so, has led us astray in important ways.
A Framework for Reading Comprehension Since the introduction of the SVR, hundreds of studies have used this model to guide their investigation and/or interpret their results. Many investigations have directly examined the main premise of the model; that is, RC is the product of decoding and language comprehension.1 This work has confirmed that much of the variance in RC can be accounted for by individual differences in decoding and language comprehension (Catts, Hogan, & Adlof, 2005; de Jong & van der Leij, 2002; Hoover & Gough, 1990). This has been shown to be the case in English readers as well as readers of other alphabetic orthographies including Greek (Protopapas, Simos, Sideridis, & Mouzaki,